wiki bans scientology from site

[_beastie]

I thought this was interesting, and was wondering if LDS are doing the same thing. I have no idea if they are or not, but thought maybe some of you were more informed on the subject.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/2 ... 08967.html

Wikipedia has banned the Church of Scientology and its members from editing its site after discovering that members of the church were editing articles in order to give the church favorable coverage.

The move is being hailed as "an unprecedented effort to crack down on self-serving edits," and it is the first instance in which Wikipedia has banned a group as large as the Church of Scientology.

[_Kevin Graham]

OMG, then yes, the LDS Church has to be second in line.

[_EAllusion]

Doubtless this will contribute to a belief among Scientologists that they are being persecuted which generally serves to reinforce faith.

I've listened to several interviews that suggests Wiki wants to crack down on systematic, horribly biased editing from motivated groups, but I don't see a way of accomplishing that goal without being arbitrary. It would seem that Scientology gets picked off here because they are an easy target. I'd rather Wiki was left as is, warts and all. A smart reader knows how to judge the relative credibility of the claims found therein reasonably well.

[_beastie]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/31/ ... 243746054/

The committee said all Internet addresses "owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked" and users who log on with such IP addresses will be "prohibited from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined."

It seems to me all scientology has to do to get around this ban is to instruct its members to do the editing from home computers. Will the next step be to ban anyone who makes a positive edit about scientology? I don't see how this is going to work. Doesn't wiki already put up warnings that the content of articles is disputed? I wonder why they felt that wasn't sufficient.

In the past, some critics have speculated that the Mormon church has also instructed some members to do things like monitor websites. I wouldn't find it far-fetched to think some were also editing wiki. Of course, If I recall correctly, FAIR set up its own "wiki", so maybe they feel it isn't necessary. When critics suggested these things they were mocked by defenders of the faith as conspiracy theorists, crazy loons who saw black helicopters circling overhead. Yet the scientology case demonstrates that such behavior has, indeed, been engaged in by at least one other religious group. The case of the "more good foundation" has always raised my suspicions, as well. And anyone else remember the website page that, If I recall correctly, actually mentioned how many anti-mormon websites the church monitors. That same webpage disappeared very quickly.

[_Mercury]

in the early stages of Wikiscanner ( http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ ) the LDS church was cited as an astroturfer.

http://www.slate.com/id/2172703/pagenum/2

[_beastie]

Aha! Fascinating. Thanks, Merc. It will be interesting to see how the scientology issue works out. Perhaps it's their trial balloon.

[_Ray A]

This would be quite an ironic turn of events. Could it be a case of Wiki going MAD?

[_bcspace]

So only unfavorable coverage is wanted? I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.

To avoid hypocrisy, Democrats should not be allowed to edit the Obama entry.

[_EAllusion]

I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.

?! Is this a typo? Doubtless there are plenty of people out there who really do think lying for the Lord - so to speak - is permissible, if not obligated in certain circumstances. Yet it is rare for someone to come out and speak in favor it it. That kinda gives the jig up and defeats the purpose of such lying in the first place.

----------------

For what it is worth, what wiki ideally wants is true coverage. The difference between that ideal and the real world aside, that only means unfavorable with the truth is unfavorable. In order to achieve this, Wiki has rules in place about how things need to be cited and so forth. Scientology is getting the boot because they can't keep themselves from writing hackneyed material in violation of those rules due to their biases. Singling them out does seem arbitrary, so you won't get an argument from me there.

[_moksha]

I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.

Good point. We all know that some truths are not helpful. Perhaps some untruths could add sparkle.